Coraggio Consulting
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Legislative Committee, Tuesday, September 1, 2026

Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026
Place: Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Virginia
Length: 1h 15m (video)
Official meeting video (Fairfax County): https://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/4233
Official Board of Supervisors page (Fairfax County): https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/boardofsupervisors/

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-26. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:00:01] Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the September 1st Legislative Committee meeting, the first of 2027 legislative program. We have a lot to cover in an hour and a half, and so I'd like to quickly preview where we are, what we're covering today, and how today's meeting will run. To ensure we get through the entire agenda, there will be two dedicated windows for open discussion, the first being after the draft 2027 legislative program and directly prior to the conclusion of today's meeting. With that being said, please hold your questions until that time.

[00:00:41] So just again, to remind you, there will be two opportunities for discussion. I will make sure to let you know when that is. I'd like to thank Jennifer Vanney and her amazing legislative team for all their incredible hard work that goes into this process year in, year out. This morning, we will start with a quick overview of the changes to our government relations strategy and what that means for year-round engagement. As you know, for the last two years now, we've been trying to streamline the way we do things at the legislative committee to try to make things not only easier for all of us to be able to go through and understand, but also just to

[00:01:20] make sure that we are using our time effectively. So from there, we'll walk through the 2027 legislative program and the federal funding priorities. Each of you has one of these handouts at your desk. Again, we are going to run through the federal funding priorities as well as the legislative program. This is a handout with all the board advisory committee's proposals.

[00:01:43] We will not be walking through them, but it is provided as a reference. Our goal today is to have a clear direction ahead of the delegation work session on October 6th. Again, that working session is October 6th. And so with that, Jennifer, I will turn it over to you. Jennifer Irvinee, Legislative Director. Thank you very much, Legislature Chairman Jimenez. I want to also thank not just my team, but the Legislative Review Team, which is made up again of about 94 members of the staff who also pour into this and all their directors and supervisors who help

[00:02:19] build this program every year. So the first item is walking through kind of the government relations strategy changes proposals. This is just something we've discussed off and on, both in individual meetings as well as we talked about this a little bit at the beginning when we gave our final report last year. It's part of this shift of having everything kind of sooner and trying to get things to our delegation. Essentially, it is a shift from lobbying specific work to a government relations approach. This is a broader approach that focuses on relationship building ahead of

[00:02:54] any problems so that we can be at the table and we can be driving solutions. It also makes sure that we have clearer communications as well as helping staff in the regulatory environment as there's been a lot of changes over the last several years. So it is a broader approach rather than just kind of focusing most of our effort during the General Assembly. To make these changes, there's a couple of changes that will change to both to the program. So you'll see that in as we walk through the program, there is a change to align it with the strategic plan as well as combine it with the

[00:03:29] federal. Another change will be that we're taking the federal and making it more focused. Our federal work will be focused mostly on funding opportunities and then working through our partners at the federal level, such as NACO, to represent other interests. And so in that way, the federal program pages that are included in the program, which we'll go over, are focused specifically on high level funding priorities for the county. Those are the major changes. Just wanted to highlight that strategy for you as we've been working towards this throughout the summer and are ready to

[00:04:06] engage with all of you in it as well. Well, thank you, Jennifer, and thank you for staff for that presentation and that giving us a general idea of how we're moving forward. I think it's just a fantastic idea not to just look at the session, but also looking at it more holistically and having a year-round approach, as you mentioned. So moving from a model that is primarily focused on lobbying their general assembly session to a year-round strategy puts us as a county in a much stronger position to be proactive rather than reactive. And I think that that's something that we've really been focusing on. How can we be in front of things instead of just reacting when

[00:04:44] something happens to us? So with that, Jennifer, I will hand it back to you and staff to go over the 2027 draft legislative program. And as a reminder, we will have time for open discussion following the following presentation. Thank you. All right. Thank you again, and thank you to the staff and all the leadership and yourselves for the ideas that have gone through and the discussion of it this summer.

[00:05:07] As you'll see, the program has been a bit of a redesign again this year. As I mentioned before, we are realigning it to the strategic plan, the 10 outcome areas. And so the first pages will be similar to last year with a demographic look and then going over our priorities and strategic positions on pages three and four, and then we'll go into the different ten.

[00:05:30] The goal was to try to keep each of those areas to around one page, and this has allowed for us to consolidate and reshuffle some of the language in more meaningful ways. And so what you see highlighted is anything that we have added that's a significant language change or adding historical positions into the document that we've had. The goal is that this is the driver of our year-long engagement, and it's also a snapshot in time. And so by adding some of those historical positions in from either last session of positions

[00:06:07] we took on bills or from further back, this allows the lobbyists to get to work on these issues as soon as we hear them start happening throughout the year. So let's start walking through that. So on page three, you'll see that this was the same guiding principles we had as last year.

[00:06:28] The change is the last section of it where we listed our initiatives last year. Right now, we have the four historical budget amendments we've been putting in the last two years around transportation funding, constitutional officers funding specifically for local finance directors and two of the K-12 JLARC recommendations. So that is what's in that, is a little bit different about that section, but all the language in the guiding principles continues to be the same. Then on page four, we have the priorities for this year laid out. So we can go ahead and

[00:07:07] walk through those. The first one continues to be K-12 funding, not just the JLARC recommendations, but making sure that it's aligned with what real costs are at the state, including that JLARC study, but making sure the funding is there as well as the structural changes.

[00:07:24] I'm going to turn it over to Noel Dominguez to talk about the second one. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Noel Dominguez with the Department of Transportation. The second one is similar to last year where we note support of dedicated sustainable funding for transit systems, including WMATA and the Connector.

[00:07:39] As we know, last year, the General Assembly helped with some short-term aid, as well as some other proposals to address transportation funding. But I think those discussions continue, and this would just keep us in the discussion as they move forward. Great.

[00:07:56] So the next one goes back to our housing engagement, as we talked about at the final report. We want to continue to be proactive in that engagement. We've been working throughout the summer with different delegation members and people who have had bills around housing in the summer. And so just continuing that push to make sure affordable, accessible, and integrative housing is there across income levels at the county.

[00:08:20] The fourth priority this year continues to be how the state is implementing the HR1 changes to Medicaid and SNAP. There's some new language added in that you'll see highlighted in that fourth bullet. And this is really to get into the specifics that the changes of what happened last year versus this year and where we are.

[00:08:40] And so it's really just trying to get more as we are approaching implementation timelines to get explicit in some of those things. You will see throughout the program we have also added in language regarding HR1 implementation into different sections where it will be effective.

[00:08:59] The next one is an historical position that we took last year around collective bargaining. Again, Fairfax County supports collective bargaining. That includes local budgetary control and implementation. And so we wanted to make sure that was noted here as it will continue to be a subject that is discussed.

[00:09:16] And then the last one continues to be a historical position we've had around the need for tax reform at the state level to make sure we can diversify funding across the needs that the county has. So those are the sections of the guiding principles and priorities for this year.

[00:09:34] The next page on page five is the budget priorities. You won't see any highlights here, but you will see that it's a bit of a – we've moved some language into it to try to focus on throughout the program where we were mentioning the need for funding.

[00:09:52] When it fell into the priorities, we wanted to move it in here. So in the transportation section of the old program, we used to have funding in there. It's now embedded in the budget priorities, and we will use this page to guide feedback to the board around budget and what's included in the budget this year.

[00:10:12] So page six starts the new structure of having it around the 10 outcome areas from the strategic plan. The first one is cultural and recreational opportunities. That is where we've located some of our language around parks and historical resources.

[00:10:30] Page seven is economic opportunity. You will see two highlighted portions of this section. This used to be our general workforce and economic development sections. We just have it here. And underneath the business incentives and investment section, there's a highlighted bullet.

[00:10:49] That is the more generalized way of putting the initiative we've had last year around the urban public private partnership fund. That is being studied at the state level. We're hopeful that if not that fund, some fund could be set up to help defray utility costs and try to spur economic development and housing in more urban areas.

[00:11:11] Then in the workforce development section, you'll see we added a bullet in there around specifically how the state can engage and promote workforce and community engagement and learning opportunities with the new workforce and community engagement requirements with Medicaid and SNAP changes coming.

[00:11:33] So that is one of the items I mentioned around HR1 being kind of sprinkled throughout. Just wanted to highlight this one here. The other thing I wanted to call out is the last bullet on page 7 to note that, again, as streamlining, we used to have a child care section where we had several things.

[00:11:51] We no longer have a child care section, but it is realigned throughout the program where it makes sense. So here it's talking about the state needing to support child care funding to allow people and support workforce in that area. Page 8 is the longest section of this. It is the one that boils past two pages and it's the effective and efficient government. The first section, local authority, was a new section we created last year specifically around land use. This has been expanded and combined with other language throughout the program from years past that have to do with local land use control but

[00:12:28] also local control of other elements such as authority to increase the electronic vehicle EV recharging stations and things like that. And so all of that is now lumped into this section. And then you'll see the highlighted, that's just the data center statement that we've had throughout the years. Just wanted to highlight that that's where it's living this year. The next section is elections, which does not have any new information, though I will want to note that we have removed some language given the groundbreaking legislation

[00:13:05] that passed last year. The Freedom of Information Act section is next. The highlighted section here highlights the increase that staff is seeing through AI. It's something we discussed last year during the General Assembly session, and so we added it in here to call out, especially given the workload challenges we've seen around AI use. And the last section is taxation. You'll notice a couple highlighted bullets here. These are old positions that we've had that we wanted to reaffirm in new ways. The first one is new local authority for taxing options for preserving

[00:13:41] and producing affordable housing, calling on the state to help us in that area. And then the second and third bullets that are highlighted are around the state funding around mandated tax exemptions. So one calls them that if they have mandated a tax exemption, for example, the Veterans constitutional amendment that passed several years ago, that counties need to be made whole for that as we do depend on property taxes to fund localities. The third statement is future

[00:14:15] looking of it as they're considering potential state mandates to tax property tax that they need to consider local revenue impacts of those options. I did want to note that there is a study around the veteran tax exemption and the effect on counties as we are seeing an accelerated growth since that program began of tax, of funding that is being not diverted, but that is falling in that sphere across the state. And so there is a study going on in that, and we're hopeful that that produces some good results. Page 10 is the empowerment and support of residents facing

[00:14:52] vulnerability. This is a combination of sections from early childhood, human services, and Medicaid from years past. The first section is child-focused services. This talks about child care, early early development, as well as CSA and the changes around CPS and other child-focused service provisions that we do. The second one is people with disabilities, older adults, and Medicaid waivers, and this focuses our work around all of those populations, including how do we keep them in community, how do we make sure they have the resources they need to remain in

[00:15:27] community, as well as how do we best integrate all of our communities together, as well as looking at Medicaid rates and slots to be able to provide those services to folks. Page 11 is environment and energy. You'll see a new highlighted bullet. It is a new old highlighted bullet in that we supported the efforts for the establishment of the Virginia Electronic Vehicle Rebate Program.

[00:15:58] It is being sunsetted as of January 1, and so we are supporting again for the reauthorization of that as we did when it was established. We are recommending that in the position. The solid waste, you'll notice that we strengthened some language and updated given the composting legislation that passed in those years. And so wanted to just note those changes there as well. Page 12 is healthy communities. You'll note some more highlighting on this page. In having this special section, we often take positions during session around public health, but we've never really had a

[00:16:38] public health section. So you'll see some historic positions that we are specifically calling out around delivery of quality health school services, as well as technology and funding for food assistance programs. Again, these are historical positions from bills we have supported and efforts we've supported in the past, which is why they are in the program as proposed this year. I'm happy to take comments, but just wanted to call out the highlights of those new sections. Some of this also draws back to, and we can discuss this further later in the committee, but also draws

[00:17:15] back to, again, the changes coming from the federal shift with H.R. 1 and especially the governor's statements around the need for the state to take leadership in some of those areas. Page 13 is housing and neighborhood livability. This is where we're noting our housing positions and affordable housing positions. No changes noted from last year, but again, continuing to know that this will be a focus as it's in our priority list. Page 14 is lifelong education and learning. You'll see that this is where our historical K-12 position is living, along with

[00:17:54] school readiness and libraries. This section is focusing on how to make sure we have inclusive, responsive, and accessible learning opportunities across the lifespan, as noted in our strategic plan. And then on page 15, I'm going to take a break and turn it over to Christine, and she'll present the next section. Good morning. Christine Prentiss of Department of Transportation, Mr.

[00:18:16] Chairman, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. We have, there are no changes, no major changes to my responsibilities during the session in this document. We have streamlined it, and we will continue to prioritize transportation safety, transportation funding, and coordinating with our regional, local, and state partners. And we will also be looking to avoid any legislation that would require the transfer of secondary road construction and maintenance responsibilities to

[00:18:55] the counties. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Christine. The next section is safety and security. This is where we're putting our public safety and justice sections. So you'll note our historical positions around courts, detention and jails. Under detention and jails, we've added in a statement around the issue that has popped up over the last several years around mandated consolidation of juvenile detention facilities. So we went ahead and added that to the program. The next section is safe communities. You'll notice that the first

[00:19:31] bullet is much shorter given the gun historic firearm safety legislation that passed last session. The second bullet is a rewrite of our statements from previous positions around technology. We consolidated several of them and added that here. And then you'll see the next highlighted section is around E911. And last year we added a position around calling for changes to how that is funded at the state level and just wanted to strengthen that language there. The next section is domestic and sexual violence. The majority of this section remains the same with

[00:20:06] strengthening some of the language, both as staff recommendation as well as the commission on women's request to strengthen those sections. The stalking and human trafficking, there are bills that we have supported in the past, so it does definitely reflect our historical positions in these subjects.

[00:20:24] So that concludes the state portion of the program. And on page 17, we now have the new section, which is called Federal Funding Priorities. Again, as noted in the new strategy, the new structural changes to the approach is to really focus on the funding and where we can partner with the government to make sure our priorities are being met and funded at the federal level. This whole section is highlighted because, again, it is new, but all the information that is in the section is pulled from the formal strategies and principles that we've passed in

[00:21:00] years and make up what was the funding priorities in that section. And so we can just highlighting that quickly, this talks about the, what we used to call as earmarks is now noted as community project funding and congressionally directed spending projects, talk around economic development, support for elections, environment, national parks, scenic parkways, transportation, health and human services, housing, libraries, public safety, and then on page 18, transportation. So again, these are all funding priorities that were in our previous strategic and principles document

[00:21:40] just combined down and streamlined into one package. Thank you, Jennifer. I just want to highlight before we open it up a couple of things. So on the state side, a few priorities stand out to me, such as K through trail funding, long-term funding for WMATA, and state resources to produce and preserve affordable housing. As the federal government continues making changes to Medicaid and SNAP, we need continued support by the Commonwealth, such as Governor Spanberger's recent executive order, to keep Virginia covered by strengthening H.R. 1. With that being said, I'd like now to pass it over to Chairman McKay for any comments or questions.

[00:22:20] Thank you very much. First of all, excellent job in streamlining this. I mean, I, you know, this has been a complaint, a challenge that we've had for a long time, which is getting our message across, which is oftentimes very nuanced with data into a clear, crisp document.

[00:22:38] And I know on some of these, we're going to be wanting the data supporting the recommendation that we're making, but I appreciate that we haven't tried to jam that all into this document. I'll also say I appreciate that fixing the underlying funding issues with K-12 education is mentioned repeatedly throughout this document and is the number one bullet point in a lot areas, and I can't emphasize that enough. I do have a couple of questions, and they're not necessarily recommendations. I'm just going to put them out there as something that we should think about as we're refining the draft. And the first one is on page three, we talk about provide

[00:23:17] dedicated and sustainable funding for WMATA and regional transit needs using state resources and optional local authority. That's bullet point one. The General Assembly response to that might be, we just gave you that, but we gave you something untenable, which is the right, as Northern Virginia compared to the rest of the state, to trade off school capital funding for transit capital funding. That's not what we asked for. And so I think we need to be explicit in here that we're asking for transit needs using state resources and optional dedicated for transit

[00:23:52] local authority, to be clear, because otherwise they'll turn right back to us and say, we just gave you that. You chose not to use it. So I think that's one thing we need to look at. The second thing on page four, and I'll just put this out there, is something to think about.

[00:24:08] On the collective bargaining position where we mentioned that we support it, I'm just wondering if we also need to mention in there and remind the General Assembly that not only do we support it, but this board passed an ordinance in 2021. This is not new here. We've had this in place for a lot of years. As we get into the collective bargaining conversation, the fact that we're doing it and doing it well, I think, is going to be an important part of the conversation. So we might just want to reference in there that we put that ordinance in place in 2021. The only other comments I have, first, this is a comment. On page seven,

[00:24:46] the new bullet point about obsolete commercial properties and the readiness fund, really appreciate that being put in. For my colleagues who were at VACO, we heard the Secretary of Commerce specifically mention this. I've had multiple phone conversations with her as recently as last week reiterating the need for this. What I am unclear on is what action the General Assembly would need to take versus what action can be done just by administrative fiat, for lack of a better term. And so I think we need to drill down on that a little bit better. I think to create

[00:25:22] A site readiness fund might take action of the General Assembly, but to enable obsolete commercial properties in urban areas to be considered for VEDP funding is a different subject. And so I think I just would like to follow up with you on that.

[00:25:41] On page 8, I appreciate the language dealing with data centers. I would just say that, you know, I have said and I've mentioned this to some of our General Assembly members that what we really need help from the state on data centers is the state setting and environmental floor of requirements that must be met by data center providers.

[00:26:04] My only concern with this language is without shifting the responsibility of regulatory compliance onto localities, are we saying regulatory compliance with our own rules or are we saying things right now that we can't control, which is we have no control over the availability of electric grid.

[00:26:24] The state oversees our electrical, our electric corporations. And so my question is, is are what we're looking for is the state to play a larger role in verifying that the electric capacity on the grid is in place to support data centers?

[00:26:42] And in addition to that, are we saying that, which I hope is what we're saying, is it would be helpful if the state would set a floor of environmental standards by which localities could still want to exercise the flexibility of exceeding that floor. But right now, what I've heard from a number of people across the state is there is no state-mandated floor with regard to grid availability and with regard to environmental compliance.

[00:27:08] And if that's the case, you know, maybe we should explicitly say that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just curious on how you would like our board to steer, because we can go in several directions on that one, obviously. With what's going on with Dominion Energy and what's going on with the State Corp and what's going on throughout the Northern Virginia data centers, If we ask the state to set a floor and then I look at our land use policies and we create that as well, then we can move forward in one direction.

[00:27:40] If we set our own floor, which we really have, it still doesn't help us with the S-Corp and it doesn't help us with Dominion. So the question is, how do we want to intersect? I think we should be looking at both of those. I think we should be looking at the state providing support for localities to verify that the electrical needs are in place to be able to support these uses.

[00:28:03] We can't do that. I mean, the state can. They have an SEC. They oversee these uses. And in terms of electrical compliance, I mean, they set the rules. We don't. And so we need help in that area. And the second place I think the state needs help is we have set an environmental floor.

[00:28:23] It would be nice if the state would set one that everyone in Virginia had to comply with and then give localities the authority to exceed that should they seek that. And the reason I bring this up is if you look across the state, and we had this conversation with Vaco, some localities in Virginia have no local expertise to be able to evaluate these.

[00:28:43] And so their environmental standards don't exist. That affects us, and it affects the industry. And so out of fairness, I think we should be advocating for a statewide environmental floor on data centers, and we should be advocating for additional state support in evaluating the electrical needs and operational needs of these uses, which we may not be experts in.

[00:29:04] And so I think it's both of those. And so I'm just putting that out there, I think, for further discussion and to think about our language relative to those two things that have come up. And then I'll be very quick. My last two comments on page 11, municipal solid waste.

[00:29:21] We're asking for additional local authority to address recycling and waste diversion challenges. When we had a discussion about franchise opportunities for trash, and I don't mean to bring up this very controversial issue here, But the roadblock that we kept running into is the absurd five-year waiting period.

[00:29:45] I don't see us address that unless you're incorporating that under expanding local authority. But, you know, because right now it is about addressing recycling and waste diversion challenges.

[00:30:01] And so what you're saying there is we need things like flexibility and elimination of the five-year waiting period that we operate under now? Yes, Legislative Chairman, Chairman McKay, yes, that's what we were intending to, but we can add in some more explicit language if that's what the board would like.

[00:30:20] I just think if I'm a member of the General Assembly and I read that language, I don't know what exactly we're asking for. And so we might want to be more explicit in that area. And then finally, my last comment, page 16, under safety and security, you highlighted the opposition to consolidate local juvenile detention facilities. My understanding is our opposition to that is based on a lack of dedicated state funding support and/or reimbursement for the cost associated with that, that on its surface we didn't necessarily have a problem with consolidation. Our problem with consolidation was like a lot of things

[00:30:59] with the state, we were concerned we would be left with the bill for that and And so if we want to oppose consolidation outright, that's one thing. I'm not sure I do. I absolutely oppose it unless full funding is provided by the state to support it.

[00:31:18] And those are two different subjects. And so I think it's reasonable for us to be able to discuss those two. As you know, we have members of our delegation, or at least one, that feels very passionately about this issue. I've had conversations with him. Our issue has always been we don't want to be stuck with the responsibility for funding these.

[00:31:38] And so if that's what our opposition is based on, we probably should say unless full funding is provided by the state in case this gets legs. I'm not sure I oppose consolidation for the purposes of consolidation. I think there are probably some people who have very good arguments why consolidation makes a lot of sense.

[00:31:57] It just doesn't make any sense if we're the ones stuck paying the bill for it. And so we might want to add that to that position. Otherwise, I think this is very good. I think the streamlining efforts are noticed and appreciated and look forward to further conversation.

[00:32:17] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we have a list of speakers, and we're going to start with Vice Chairman Smith. Just on the last topic that the chairman brought up with the consolidation, and I don't know enough about where these are, Was part of the concern about the consolidation that you're taking the juveniles too far away from their home locations?

[00:32:41] Legislative Chairman, Vice Chair Smith, yes, that is exactly one of the things that we brought up, and not just because of the cost, but also the human side of things that this isn't. We moved to a system of local base to support and better provide rehabilitation services and mental health services to the youth, and so taking them out of their community not only imposes a cost of both sheriff time and personnel, but also the cost to potentially removing that kid and having the ability for parents and other members of the community to come and support them while they are.

[00:33:15] So I think we need to have that broad understanding of the issues. Real quickly on that subject, I think that's right, because in the case of Northern Virginia, it wasn't as acute as they were looking at consolidating Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax. But I think when you get in other parts of the state, that is a real issue.

[00:33:32] Thank you. just have one other quick thing. On page 12, when it talks about the increase of taxing authority in that last bullet, and it says, and nicotine products, would that also reference like the gum and the mints and the people that people use for smoking cessation? That's a great question. I can check with the Department of Health on that one. I don't know if it does. I don't think that's the intent is what I'll say, but we'll make sure the language. And that's why I asked the question because, yeah, thank you.

[00:34:04] I think this is great that we're organized over the strategic plan. Thank you so much. We're going to go with Supervisor Herdy, Palachuk, and then Supervisor Loss. Well, first, I think this is a vast improvement, consolidating it, because the other one was way too long.

[00:34:23] When I do things like this, I try to look at the recipient and our audience, which is really, I think, our state legislators. When we were going through this process, Did we think about organizing it based on their committees?

[00:34:39] And I know some stuff bounces back and forth between committees depending on what the whims. Whether they want to kill it or they want it to move forward and who's on what committee. But that would give our legislators a place to look that they're familiar with versus our strategic plan, which they may or may not be familiar with.

[00:35:02] some are some may some may not be but and did we ask that question to our state legislators um supervisor herity that is a great question we did not i think we did not ask the question it was a consideration i think the way we viewed the program redesign is that the main communication portions will be pages three and four so the overview of the county the guiding principles and the priorities and that the rest of it is guidance to the the lobbyists to do the work when we're printing out materials, it would be concentrated on the first portion of the program

[00:35:38] versus the whole program. And then the rest of the positions would be communicated per bills to individuals versus printing the whole program as we have in the past and handing it to them. But it's definitely something that we can consider. Okay. And Supervisor Heredy, we wanted to make sure that we were on the same page first and foremost. Now the next step is to ensure that our delegation understands where we're going.

[00:36:04] So we've got to make sure we're understanding what's happening first, and that's why it was restructured to do it this way. And I'm not going to go through everything in here I have an issue with, but on page 16, and this is something I've talked about for a while, we've had an issue, and I know there have been bills that have been submitted because I've worked to get them submitted, on changing the presumption on bail for convicted, repeat, violent offenders.

[00:36:36] And when you talk to public safety, we have had an issue with that here where we've had convicted repeat violent offenders be released without being held. So I would encourage the board to include that fairly common-sense position somewhere in here.

[00:36:56] If you're, you know, fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three times, shame on me. But we need something in here in the safety security area on that because bail reform, the way it was done, is not working, in my opinion.

[00:37:14] I will, I think I'll stay away from energy, but we really need an energy as more dispatchable energy being produced here in Virginia instead of brought in on, what do you call it, transmission lines.

[00:37:32] But I will get earmarks, just trying to understand the process here. On page 17, it says we're going to main the process of earmarking funds. Do we know what the timeline is for presenting what earmarks we're going to go after and getting board input on this? We are currently doing a process change, and we can give more information back, but we're working with some different partners throughout to try to do it earlier.

[00:37:57] In the past, it has been the offices put out the call in February, and they're due three weeks later. And so it's been a quick turnaround for all staff involved. And so we are working on a more streamlined process to start early and make sure we have a list of ongoing projects that I'm happy to send more information about as that process gets furthered up.

[00:38:19] That will include board input, too, at some point. Okay. I think that will be it for now. Thank you, Supervisor Herdy. Supervisor Palachuk and then Supervisor Lusk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the staff, all the staff who have worked on this. Very much appreciate this.

[00:38:36] I have, just in addition to what was said, three specific comments. The first one really is going, and I'll give you the page number, page eight on local authority. Going back to Chairman McKay's comments, I was reading this and trying to find a more proactive way. I mean, it really does feel like the wild, wild west and the authorities pushed down, overly pushed down, I think, to authority, to local authority.

[00:39:01] So as you look at that language, you know, I was trying to think about how to help have that, taking the lead, right, where it makes sense for the state to take the lead versus the locality. So I think, as the chairman said, maybe more proactive, positive language, differentiating the two areas because the SEC and energy are definitely state and even federal. I don't think there is much regulation at this point. And in addition to new centers coming, we do, Providence has three, I would say, legacy data centers that definitely need upgrading. And so I think we need

[00:39:39] support and partnership on how to do this responsibly in large and in smaller localities. So absolutely support that. The next one that stood out to me, just on page 11, the municipal solid waste. You know, I know there's a lot that we would like to move forward on there. Definitely here, again, that the minimum, the floor for recycling and waste, you know, as we consider different options and public-private partnerships or ways to always improve the way we do solid waste and recycling.

[00:40:15] I think getting that baseline from the state would be helpful to help at least many of us feel more comfortable looking at sharing more of those duties with our private haulers. And then finally, my big one is on page 15, mobility and transportation.

[00:40:36] You know, I'm here looking at the VDOT state pedestrian safety map, And I've had many of these conversations about what the 1% and the 5% statewide pedestrian, what they call non-safety roads are, the least safe roads, roadways, corridors for pedestrians.

[00:40:57] And I don't know how many of those that are in red in the top 1%, which includes many of our roads, are Vita-owned versus locality-owned. I know we keep hearing we might not like the comparison, but I think it would be helpful because I believe the comparison shows that at least in northern Virginia and in Hampton Roads and a couple of the more urban areas, you see a lot of the red, a lot of the top 1% for lack of safety for pedestrians.

[00:41:27] And I just think when we look at transportation safety and coordination, the last bullet on pedestrian, bicyclist, micromobility safety, and maintenance, I think helping us narrow it down to where they are, VEDA-owned roads that are at the top 1% for being unsafe roads for our pedestrians, as we try to narrow down where that additional funding, support, and collaboration are to help ensure safety, not just for through traffic, vehicle traffic, but for our pedestrians. I know that's been really contentious, so I don't know if there's

[00:42:06] a downside to that in the conversations I've had, but I'd like to address that. I don't know if you have more on that, Noelle. Mr. Chairman, Supervisor Palczyk, I will check in more on that, specifically the VEDA versus locality owned. I did want to specify that while we have a coordination section on page 15, in the budget priority section on page 5 where we list various programs to address multi-mobility needs, we also talk about construction and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities there for, as well as access to transit for moving people. So we have the need for active transportation facilities in a couple

[00:42:42] of places, but I can circle back on the EDOT versus locality. And I think just prioritizing, not, you know, the whole state, it doesn't see the red. If you go to the pedestrian safety action plan, that's where it is, you'll see red in the urban area. So let's try to focus, right, help them prioritize where we're seeing the least safe areas for pedestrians. Thank you.

[00:43:03] Thank you so much, Supervisor Lusk and Supervisor Heisner and then Supervisor Beerman. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll thank the staff for the streamlined process as well. I have a couple of maybe editorial comments.

[00:43:20] On page 10, on the last bullet that talks about the scams, and here I think we should probably add the word And after it says support, funding, and programs that help, I'd like to add the word educate, comma, prevent, stop, and remedy financial scams, especially for vulnerable populations.

[00:43:51] And the reason why I'm adding the word educate is that we just, Regina and I had a constituent come in just a couple days ago. And these are always difficult conversations when people experience these types of activities. And the point about education is the one that just keeps coming up consistently.

[00:44:10] And I think we do need to figure out how to elevate that because that's really going to be the thing that helps prevent and ultimately stop a number of these scams. So I appreciate the language that's here, but just want to add that one word. Also on page 12, we talk about healthy communities.

[00:44:30] Again, the food security one, this is the one that causes me so much consternation just in terms of the fact that there's so many people in our community who are facing food security and insecurity.

[00:44:46] And I really think we should probably have another bullet here that talks specifically about additional support and funding to assist the local governmental and non-profits to address food insecurity in our community.

[00:45:11] I think we need to articulate that specifically. I mean, I see the points that we have, but I think we need to get to the heart that we need additional funding to address this problem because it's become much larger in the last few months, and it's really based on what's happening at the federal level.

[00:45:31] So that's point two. On page 13, the last bullet, and this one I know I've kind of wordsmithed this one. A few times, I'm going to wordsmith it maybe one more time.

[00:45:47] So I do appreciate the language that we have here talking about the manufactured housing. The thing that I've kind of learned over the last year is you can't make improvements to certain units because of their age.

[00:46:07] So the only thing you can do is you've got to replace them. So I need to add the word replacement after where it says, and I'll read the whole line again, enhanced protections for residents of manufactured housing, including more state financial assistance with relocations, comma, replacements, and rehabilitation efforts.

[00:46:35] So I think the word replacement is really necessary to help us address that specific point. Thank you, Supervisor Lusk. I think you're going to like the next portion of our talk. No problem at all. And I appreciate that.

[00:46:50] And then there's one more. So on page 16, under safety and security, one of the areas that I think the courts have been trying to figure out is how do we make court services more accessible?

[00:47:07] How do we make them available to individuals in the community? And they are providing some services through remote access. One of the things that I think we could figure out, and we've talked about it, but I think we need to maybe put a pin on it, is this point about using kiosks or other access services to make court services available in other parts of our community.

[00:47:36] And with that, I'll go ahead and conclude. I have some others, but I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Leisemore Heisner, followed by Supervisor Jimenez. Supervisor Jimenez, may I say something, please? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Supervisor Luz, thank you for your comments about making it more accessible.

[00:47:55] Deputy County Executive Arnold and I spent some time with Judge Shannon and Circuit Court Chris Falcone, and we are working with them tirelessly to ensure that we make it accessible.

[00:48:12] And if you notice, Mr. Falcone has always been that guy to go out into the community. He is setting up another expungement ceremony, or I shouldn't say ceremony, but an expungement program to ensure that folks are able to move on with their lives.

[00:48:33] So he's going to have a schedule to us. Once we have that schedule, we'll make sure that we provide that to you. And again, Judge Shannon, we're going to be meeting quarterly, talking about all the things that you just discussed. So I just want to make sure everybody here knows that between myself and Deputy County Executive Arnold, those topics are being addressed.

[00:48:55] Okay. And Mr. Chairman, if I could just thank you very much, Mr. Hill, for that. I'll just ask, maybe I just wasn't aware that those conversations were happening. So I guess as the safety and security chair, I mean, I would be interested in knowing about those types of activities and certainly appreciate what is being done specifically with the expungements, the fact that we held the first expungement clinic in Franconia. I'm happy to have led that and just think it's so important that we do that in other places. So thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I appreciate that. And I know that the clerk is part of the

[00:49:33] team that you talked to about our legislative priorities. So I do think we need to be careful about what we put in our legislative package are things that we determine we need General Assembly action for. I don't think the kiosks need General Assembly action. If they do, we need to be explicit with that, but I don't think they do.

[00:49:51] So I just want to make sure as we celebrate the honing of this and the focus of it that we keep within our focus the things we need General Assembly enabling authority or action to be able to accomplish as opposed to necessarily things that we don't.

[00:50:06] And so if we need funding for it, we should say that. If we need enabling authority to be able to do kiosk, we could say that. I don't think we need any of those, but I would hope that the input from the clerk would help guide specific language on that front and that it would always be focused on where we need general assembly action to be able to accomplish what it is we're trying to do.

[00:50:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Moving to our next supervisor, Supervisor Sizemore Heisner, followed by Supervisor Bierman. Thank you. And I appreciate the report and the detailed information. I like the new format as well. I think it's very helpful.

[00:50:47] There's several pieces of comments that I have, and I may have more later. But a couple things. I agree with the comments. I think I like that this is sort of outlining a line of the strategic plan. I think that's brilliant and perfect, because I think we should be doing that with a lot of our work.

[00:51:02] And I know we are. But, you know, seeing how does it tie to our long-term goals. And I like what you said, that coming out of this once we're in alignment, I think you said this, county executive field, then we can figure out the specific targeting, the specific delegation based on their committees, based on maybe even bills they want to do, or maybe get to the point if you're hiring outside consultants that we can start helping shape those bills once we have priorities down or even suggesting. So I think that's the natural next step that I'd want to look at. And one of my questions for you was, how do you see your role differently with the change

[00:51:37] personnel that you're talking about? So legislative chairman, supervisor Seismar Heiser, sorry. I don't think we see it as a change as much as an addition. So I would continue to lead the team. This person would be an extra lobbyist who also has additional relationships outside of Fairfax that can help support our work. But we would continue to help draft bills, be part of those conversations, everything like this. It would essentially be kind of a new member outside of county staff who would be part of the lobbying team down in Richmond.

[00:52:11] Okay, and that makes sense, especially the relationships outside of Fairfax. A couple things I'm going to just put on page 10, just using my HHS chair hat. I think it's great you talk about waiver slots for priority one waiver wait lists and integrated community supports.

[00:52:27] I think looking at the impact of the lack of support for community-based waivers specifically, as well as the new EVV requirements on family caregivers and the burdensome requirements that is put on family caregivers would be really – it has a trickle-down effect, right?

[00:52:45] If you make it harder for families taking care of people with disabilities in their communities, it's actually more cost-effective than institutions and others. But when you make it that much more burdensome, then you make it harder for families to maybe have another job, take care of other children. It has a much broader impact, mental health impacts.

[00:53:05] So I think that's a really important piece to look at. I've heard a lot of people talk to me about the requirements. In general, I think it might be important to mention that there was a surprise that they didn't fund a single priority one waiver waitlist slot last year. So just something to look at because there are people who are in urgent need of these slots.

[00:53:26] I said put that down there, keeping that hat on. From the domestic violence, I'm really glad that you see supporting evidence-based trauma informed education, but I would add culturally competent as well, because there is a lot of, in a multicultural community here, there's different viewpoints around domestic violence and what it looks like based on someone's cultural background. And I think that's an important piece to add to that. When we look at, and that's on page 16, I'm jumping around a little bit. When we look at the transportation on page 15, I think it's great you mentioned VDOT. I would almost flush break that out a little bit because there's a lot in that first bullet that could get

[00:54:05] lost um and so i think specifically talking about v dot coordination i know it's v dot approval processes but i think there's some coordination that potentially could be helpful as well and then i i know you mentioned micro mobility vehicle safety i'm assuming that means e-bikes but i'm wondering if it's worth asking specifically for more ability to have regulations around e-bikes because that is something I hear about a lot.

[00:54:30] So I would just maybe add a little more specificity into that transportation because I think there's so many things that we need to specifically name there. I think when we look at my notes here to see if I'm missing anything else.

[00:54:46] When we look at some of the, on page 15, around, sorry, page 7, around housing, switching to housing, I think it would be helpful to talk specifically about more financing or better financing options.

[00:55:03] It's something I hear a lot from developers, especially for affordable housing, is the difficulty of financing. You know, I think it's implied in some of these things we talk about. Same with when we talk about sort of the coordination around current entrepreneur efforts, which I think is great.

[00:55:20] But I think we should talk about coordination amongst the current efforts. We talk about expanding, like, the Go Virginia Fund and other funds. But one of the things in my conversation I keep hearing about is that there's a coordination issue between all of the existing funds. right to and help with alignment so i think talking about coordination would be helpful too i'll pause i just threw a lot at you so no not a problem i just wanted to verify that was page seven under the economic or yes so to add in a bullet around housing financing yeah housing financing i think would be helpful um and then i don't know if this i don't have a specific page number but around some of our emergency responses at the state level and i had some conversations

[00:55:59] with my delegate around this after the microburst issue in Burke. But I don't know if our emergency response regulations have kept up with the impacts of climate change, right? Because one of the issues with that particular microburst is it wasn't large enough, but it was very devastating in a small area, which is potentially a climate change.

[00:56:21] And that's something that could happen all over the Commonwealth. So for the state to really look at how do they determine emergency funding and support based on climate change, I think would be an important thing to bring up. Last piece, and I'll stop, but on the federal side, we talk very importantly and rightfully about JLARC and K-12 funding at the state side, but we should also mention the lack of IDEA funding at the federal side has this ginormous impact on state because it was promised to be around 40, 44 percent of the cost, and I think it's around between 7 and 12 percent

[00:56:57] of the cost, and that's a huge unfunded mandate that the state and the county has to pick up. So I would specifically mention IDEA funding as well on the federal side. I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you so much, Supervisor Beerman, and then Supervisor Stork before we move on.

[00:57:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page three, we talk about increasing the state portion of K-12 funding and changing the standards of quality formula to replace the—it was J. Lark's recommendation six. Do we know how much more money that would lead to Fairfax County getting in a year?

[00:57:32] I have that number at my desk, but I do not have it at the top of my head, but we do, yes. It was in the handout we created last year for the delegation. That's awesome. Do we know how it would help the city of Richmond? The city of Richmond. I do not believe it. Do we know how it would help the city of Roanoke? Not specifically.

[00:57:49] Okay. My point is first, kudos to you because you were already ready and you had the number. it's just at your desk, meaning you've done your homework, which is excellent. I think we also need to take the JLARC recommendations that we have identified as ones that we think are very important and look into how they would also benefit other cities or other counties in the Commonwealth. I threw out Richmond and Roanoke just off the top of my head. I should have said James City County because that's where Mr. Hill came from. But we want to make sure that as we're going into this

[00:58:23] year when we're looking at JLARC, I think that our strategy has also got to be to make people in other parts of the Commonwealth understand how these specific things will benefit them as well. My second point that I wanted to raise on the language around collective bargaining, I think it's close, but I think it is insufficient. I think we really do need to emphasize that we here in Fairfax County have in some ways been the proof in the pudding that collective bargaining has worked. If we had a police and fire vacancy rates that were in the teens that

[00:59:01] are down to the two and three percent, that is, I think, very much tied to collective bargaining. And so I want to make sure that our language around collective bargaining focuses on what we think the benefits of collective bargaining are for our residents, which is, frankly, better public safety agencies, lower vacancy rates. I don't think we need to make a broader statement on the floor regarding the compromise that the GA is ultimately going to land on regarding on how this will apply to every county. I think we have evidence that this works. And I

[00:59:38] think that our language about collective bargaining should emphasize also that we want to be able to keep what we have and keep the system that we believe has worked here and see it spread throughout the Commonwealth as a whole. So that's my editorial.

[00:59:53] We've still got three months to figure this out, but I think we do need to modify that language. And I'm building on what Chairman McKay was saying about the fact that we are the first jurisdiction that has really led on this. I will say on data centers, I think we all know some of the things that are very much animating people who are angry about data centers, power usage, water usage. When we changed our ordinance, we talked about things that we thought were in our control and things that were out of our control. But I think we should lay down a marker on behalf of our residents to focus on

[01:00:30] those environmental things and to say that we really do firmly believe that the state should be stepping in to try and ensure that if data centers exist, they are doing things environmentally mentally responsibly. I think we can lay down that marker, and I think it's really important.

[01:00:46] The last thing I will say is around transportation, safety, and coordination. I do think that the language that we have in there about project approval processes and design standards to be responsive to the county's specific needs puts us in the right direction and legislation to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and micromobility vehicle safety, but I may be bringing something that is even stronger. I think we know what our residents care about. They care about pedestrian safety.

[01:01:18] They care about being able to walk places. They care about people who are not in a car also being safe, and we need more tools. We need to be able to respond faster. We need our transportation department to be able to respond faster. We need to not run into problems with VDOT every time we propose something that we think is going to make people safer when they're walking or when they're not in a car. We need better partnerships. And I think, frankly, that we've seen recently we've had some improvements in our relationships with VDOT as we focused on this. So I think we are moving in

[01:01:53] the right direction, but it's something that we cannot emphasize enough. We need more tools to spot problems and solve them faster. So I will, I could have gone on for a long time, but I went last. So, and I can see Ms. Supervisor Jimenez already hitting the button to cut me off. So, thank you.

[01:02:13] Supervisor Jimenez. Thank you, Supervisor Bierman. We're going to go with Supervisor Stork and Paul Cech. We have one key five minutes left. Quick response, please. I'm sorry. Just so everybody's aware of what's happening with VDOT, We have a new secretary, Nick Donahue, who I spent a lot of time with on DMV moves.

[01:02:35] I have a commissioner who is going to be in my office tomorrow for VDOT. So as Supervisor Behrman has said, we're trying to get more tools and make it faster. It's also about having a relationship with these people, which we've never had in my almost nine years here.

[01:02:55] So I just want to ask for patience while Mr. Birch and I go through a process to get those things done for Fairfax County and Northern Virginia and, honestly, the Commonwealth of Virginia, because there are things that are potholes that we need to be fixing a little bit quicker.

[01:03:14] So I just want to say thank you for your support. Thank you. And that's why I said I feel like we're moving in the right direction, but we got to keep moving there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beerman, Supervisor Stork, then Supervisor Palachuk, and then we're going to move on to Jennifer for the final part. Two minutes or less from me.

[01:03:31] I think VDAT's communication with us is I've never seen it better, and I'm very pleased with that. It makes a difference. So thank you all very much for helping to make that happen. And I would love to see this be even shorter. I know that it took a lot to get here, so I'm not discounting it.

[01:03:47] but I know also that most of us, and I'm sure legislators, going through this is still a difficult process. So whatever we can do, I think we got this far, so maybe next year we'd go a little bit further. And then the third thing I was going to mention is I know you've mentioned that you've talked with other clerk of courts and others to put this together, and I know it's also FCPS.

[01:04:11] We work with them on this. I have just one thing that I know crosses over is some of the career education and training. And part of my conversation with FCPS now is the ability to bring in certain instructors and some of the state rules and regulations on that.

[01:04:29] So if you could just take a look at that and talk with them, I want to make sure. I looked in here, and I don't think it really captures. I looked in our economic opportunity section, which identifies, I think, good state funding, but it also doesn't talk about some of the training and barriers to finding the right folks so that we can do the career education and training work.

[01:04:53] And then I looked under our lifelong, and I didn't really see it either. So I'm just asking you to take another look and have another conversation with him. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Stork. Supervisor Paul Chan. Thank you, Mr. Chan. Just very briefly, I'm thinking back about how do we get more of the support for pedestrian safety.

[01:05:12] And I'm wondering if the way we've done with our early childhood, yes, we know it's the right thing to do, but we know the state's looking at their pockets. So do we have data or can we look at data of, you know, how sales revenue goes up in areas that are safer for pedestrians and bicyclists?

[01:05:32] Because anything we can do, it really has hit that critical of a point, and it's beyond just the safety, but we know it's best for the economy as well. Thank you so much, Supervisor Palachuk. I'm going to pass it over now to Jennifer Vanni and her team to finish us up with the last section.

[01:05:52] Thank you. All right. Thank you all so much for that feedback. Very helpful. I did want to just bring up, and I forgot I mentioned this at the beginning, but with the reduced way of what we communicate to help the delegation really work on the things that we need and our priorities, that would include not just this, but working to develop one-pagers with data in there versus always including it in the package.

[01:06:14] So just did want to also mention that is in the strategy and something that we're working on doing. The next section of the portion is basically, as I mentioned before, the program and all the highlights in it were historical positions we take in rephrasing and things like that. This document in this section is new proposals we got from staff, either for initiatives or program language, that we haven't discussed with the committee in the past.

[01:06:38] is in line with things that we support, but wanted to bring it specifically here for more in-depth discussion. And actually, Supervisor Lusk has hit on some of it already. The first thing I want to mention is our proposal for the initiative this year. So last year, there was a bill called HB 854 that we'd supported that gave locality the option to do some tax exemption around building affordable housing. Given that we do all of our affordable housing work, well, the majority of our affordable housing work through our housing authority, we need to make some technical changes to that bill to allow us to do that as well as to expand it to both not just nonprofit

[01:07:15] developers, but the for-profit developers that we partner with. And so I can go into a lot more detail if and when we want to, but that is the proposal that we take to take initiative and move that forward in that way for that specifically. Then the other things we are proposing are position statements, so they're in that strategic plan section. The first one is to support legislation enabling extended producer responsibility around lithium-ion batteries.

[01:07:46] This is done in partnership with a lot of different community members and parts of that system for the issues we're seeing in our solid waste management around lithium-ion batteries. The second one is also around solid waste and that's around stormwater and biosolids. So we talked a lot last session about some biosolid regulations. We're also hearing the PFAS at the federal level. And so the idea here is to partner with the wastewater and stormwater groups to

[01:08:22] better facilitate with that, that the proposal on the table from some of those partners is creating a regional authority to better manage and help pool resources, and so we wanted to be supportive of that effort. The next section is all tied to HR1 implementations. It's three different position statements we'd like to add. I would note that they're in line with the governor's executive order she put out on August 25, stating that the state should be leading some of these efforts to make sure the HR1 implementation is done effectively, and also that she also noted that funding isn't always available, and so how can we be strategic and smart in those partnerships?

[01:09:01] And the last section is around budget initiatives. These are two that I've heard from either staff or board members, but if there's any budget amendments, any state county projects that we would like to seek individual funding for, and so wanted to get some feedback. I had heard about potentially trying to get some funding dedicated to street lights and getting more street lights in certain portions of the county, as well as a grant program for replacing or restoring manufacture housing. So wanted to note that as well as if there's other areas that the board would like to try to see budget language on. Well, thank you for that very concise report. With that being

[01:09:39] said, given our time, I'd like to see if our chairman, Chairman McKay, would have any comments. Great. Thank you, sir. Supervisor Lusk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll go quickly. I appreciate the budget initiatives component and will say yes if there is methods for us to help those in the manufactured housing communities get support in restoring, replacing those units would be very

[01:10:13] helpful. And the hard thing that I've realized is that many of those units are older and they'll never be mobile so they're basically kind of stuck in place and that wasn't the original in a design for those structures and as we've noted there are a number of them that cannot be cannot be repaired so in those instances it will be important that we have the availability of funding to to restore those so I would certainly support a grant program that would provide that

[01:10:52] And then on the second initiative with the streetlights for pedestrian safety, very much agree and support any efforts that we can to make it better for those communities that need it.

[01:11:08] Thank you very much. Thank you, Supervisor Lusk. I'd like to see if anyone now has any comments or questions before we go to closing comments. Supervisor Starks? I just, to tie into some of the pedestrian notes that we had from the draft legislative program, I think there are some specific things we can do.

[01:11:34] And I know one of them that I've talked to some people about is how do we increase or improve some of the pedestrian crossings and access and so forth. And I know one of the issues that I consistently hear, and anybody who wants to come down and drive Richmond Highway, I'm sure you will see it.

[01:11:53] Pretty much every time you drive down the highway, somebody is crossing in the middle of the road, crossing even against traffic lights, crossing between traffic lights, not waiting for traffic lights. But in general, just deciding that they need to cross the road and assume the cars will respond accordingly.

[01:12:16] And I know that drivers clearly do not want to harm anybody, but it's not always possible to do that. And we also have people sitting out in the middle of the road and sometimes in the middle of the lane. So I think some kind of primary ordinance that the police could use to be able to address that I think is important.

[01:12:37] I know that one of the issues that was taken away a few years ago was the ability to ticket for jaywalking. And while I think most of us would not want to have a wholesale campaign about that, we also recognize as a tool it was helpful to at least ensure that people weren't crossing unsafely.

[01:12:55] So I think it's critical that we add that to our conversation, and then we have that as part of our assessment of whether or not it should be in our package and we should be moving something forward. I think it also ties into some of the other issues that we're having on Richmond Highway, whether it be some of our folks that are staying over in bus stops or folks that are panhandling aggressively.

[01:13:21] I think all those things give an opportunity for another tool. There may be other options. I would say talk to our public safety people. Maybe there's some other things. But I know the principal thing I hear about is taking away the tool to do a primary enforcement on, quote-unquote, jaywalking was one of the things that made it most difficult so thank you thank you supervisor stork supervisor harry on that and i i would echo that and and you don't have to actually ticket them you have to tell you can tell them they're going to be ticketed yes and it's and as as a

[01:13:55] so i i was sent a picture three minutes ago of a panhandler standing in the middle of a traffic and it's it's happening all over the county to be able to do that as a primary to use it as a tool to encourage people to go elsewhere help them out if we can absolutely um i 100 support getting that added because we have to do something so thank you and then i've already mentioned the bail reform for repeat violent convicted offenders so i won't mention it again thank you so much

[01:14:28] supervisor harry final call does anyone have any comments or questions at this time well with that being said i am going to go with my closing remarks so our next meeting is the delegation work session on october 6th where we'll sit down directly with our general assembly again that date is october 6th the draft program goes public on october 8th with a public hearing on october 13th we'll reconvene as a committee on december 1st ahead of a full board adoption on december 8th

[01:15:07] just about a month before the General Assembly convenes on January 13th. Between now and October, I'd ask each of you to stay in touch with myself and Jennifer's team regarding any legislative agenda updates. Once again, thank you all. This meeting is now adjourned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com